Previous  1  2

Chylarides.
It appears you would support a minimum price of say 75 cents a litre on gasoline even if the price of oil drops substantially. The extra money from the sale of gasoline would go into the healthcare fund. Am I right, would you support such a proposal ?.
Frank

   

Charging user fees is nothing more than kicking you when you are down. It is crazy to say that people abuse or overuse the system. Who would use the healthcare system if they are healthy? Some say well old people just go see the doctor for someone to talk to...that might be, but if they need someone to talk to there is a good chance something is wrong, it is an opportunity for the doctor to see if they are malnourished, being abused, taking their medictions properly etc.

Hypochondriacs? Again, there is something wrong,which needs to be addressed, either physically or mentally.

Also it is said that our older population use the system more, but I would argue that when a young woman is in her childbearing years, she will spend a great deal of time either seeing the doctor for pregnancy, birth control, and then the new baby, toddler etc up to the teen years, there are the regular check ups, the regular childhood illnesses etc.

They have also come up with the tele-service, which costs to administer and which means self-diagnosis and most probably misdiagnosis opening us up to epidemics, and because early detection is key to curing many illness, we will have more serious illness and death.

That was the idea of universal healthcare, a good quality healthcare for all, and that will not be the case if the user pays more for using. If a person is sick, they are already losing funds from work and can least afford healthcare. This entire program which we supposedly can't afford is b.s. in my opinion. Saying we can't doesn't make it so. Those old doctors who used to get paid in livestock and home made presserves must wonder about our modern logic, I sure do?

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

   

A little off-thread, but Whelan, I have a friend in the business, and he has told me that patients cost the system the most money within the last two weeks of life.

No matter what age, if you are in a car accident and live for a while, then pass away, if you have cancer that is not curable, or if you are a senior with a mild disorder that works against you because of your age and physical condition, the last two weeks of life are where the most money is spent.

Abuse of the emergency wards is well known, but until every person has access to a doctor, this will continue.



---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

   

I guess the old "I'm from Missouri" syndrome is kicking in here, anon. The money won't actually be in place until March 2005? And there will likely be an election before then. 8 months is a lot of time for things to happen.

I will maintain an interest in Alberta politics.

---
RickW

   

The money is in place. There is a bank account with $4.3 billion dollars in it, and a loan out for ~$4.2 billion. The two cancel each other out. Just like paying your mortgage off early, there would be penalties if this loan were payed off early. It makes more financial sense to put this $4 billion in t-bills or GIC's that mature when loan payments are due, and have them earn a little intrest to offset the intrest paid on the loan, rather than spend more to pay penalties. Penalties for paying loans off early always are more than the intrest paid on them during the term of the loan.<p> Alberta is debt free.<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

   

So Alberta is debt free...who cares. They should share their wealth. Toronto will be paying their bills in a few years or decades, no doubt.

   

Hi Jim.

I think there might be exceptions to your rule. I read a study once that showed that those who live the oldest, to say 95, 100+, often never see a doctor in their last 20+ years, and pass away in their sleep without incident.

I think that if someone lives past their 70s, when people who've smoked or drank too much usually die, they will usually remain pretty healthy until their death.

   

Edgarwen, read a few books on Monetary Reform before you say anymore.

Your ignorance is showing.


---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

   

Hi 'Turbed. You may have missed one point, that being a 2 year old can become ill, spend two weeks in the hospital and pass away after the medical team has strenuously tried to keep them alive.

I personally know a family whose daughter was born with ailments. They performed surgery on her many times, and each time she turned out worse.

Blindness came first, then brain damage, and they eventually took her off life support, but she managed to live for 3 years.

Not much of a life, and the cost was over one million dollars before she passed away.

This is an extreme example, but the usual patient that dies in hospital averages out to some 2 weeks, no matter the age.

Another thing, the person who used to own the house I am currently living in lived to age 80, and he went in the hospital in Lindsay, Ontario, and I visited him the first week. We were good friends, and I used to do some work for him.

When I was about to leave the next week to visit him again, I got a phone call that he had passed away overnight.

This does not include those that are in hospital because there are no beds in homes for the elderly, which is a different story altogether. They can and do hang on for years.

As I said, this is not from a study, but from a practitioner in medicine.


---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

   

I agree in part, but I don't believe that most people die in hospital. We should work on preventing death, and not simply through miraculous intervention I think.

*Another possible problem is fee-for-service. Why should doctors be paid like entrepreneurs? They should be paid a salary, that's it. People who don't want to serve their fellow human beings shouldn't be doctors.

   

I care that Alberta is debt free, I also care that we got to this place by adding hardship to the poor, the working poor, the aging and sick! I care that in the future we can brag like mad about how good it is for the rich and friends of the rich, and ignore the plight of the less fortunate.

Being rich is just a state in time; today you are rich because you worked hard, sometimes, you knew the right people, you were born into it, or you stole it from someone else. Being poor is the same, today you are poor because you did not have the advantage of higher education, you didn't have proper food as a child and suffered illnesses which kept you down, you inherited your parents debts, you have a sick child or spouse, your skills are highly underpaid and/or you didn't do that favor for your neighbor which would have given you an edge to get that great job,make that investment,buy that cheap land etc etc, or get that position in government.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

   

Whelan you are absolutely correct.

The fortunate few don't know just how lucky they are.


---
"Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
Jim Callaghan
Minden, Ontario
705-286-1860
www.misterc.ca

   

I've heard it said that "The Richest Man isn't always the one with the most; sometimes it's the man who needs the least".<p> <p>---<br>"History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme" Mark Twain <br />
"The greatest price of not participating in politics is being governed by your inferiors." Plato

   

Previous  1  2